The Government and Universal Healthcare

[Chris]

We already have universal healthcare, just a really, really bad version of it. Everyone can be treated in the emergency room. We don't let people bleed to death on the street here. Not yet, anyway. So the rich get great healthcare, and the poor get no healthcare until they are at death's door. Does that sound like a good way to run a society? No, it doesn't. The ironic thing is that every other Western democracy has a single payer system, and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare. Why? Because they don't have to pay liability lawyers, insurance companies, and Big Pharma. There are inherent cost savings with a single payer system. The Germans have had one since 1886!

With a single payer system you would still pick your doctor, and your doctor would still own his practice. There would just be one insurance company, and that would be the government.

There are solutuons that have been put on the table that would insure those who have not. Get this Chris, it's done in the private sector, at a cost far less than what your lawyer run universal healthcare system. With tax credits, for insurance companies, and tax credits to the families that need to be insured. The government is part of the solution, not the solution.

Every other Western democracy in the world has a single payer system and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare and cover everyone. Why? Because there are inherent cost savings with a single payer system.

Do a little research....

 

[Meister]

We already have universal healthcare, just a really, really bad version of it. Everyone can be treated in the emergency room. We don't let people bleed to death on the street here. Not yet, anyway. So the rich get great healthcare, and the poor get no healthcare until they are at death's door. Does that sound like a good way to run a society? No, it doesn't. The ironic thing is that every other Western democracy has a single payer system, and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare. Why? Because they don't have to pay liability lawyers, insurance companies, and Big Pharma. There are inherent cost savings with a single payer system. The Germans have had one since 1886!

With a single payer system you would still pick your doctor, and your doctor would still own his practice. There would just be one insurance company, and that would be the government.

There are solutuons that have been put on the table that would insure those who have not. Get this Chris, it's done in the private sector, at a cost far less than what your lawyer run universal healthcare system. With tax credits, for insurance companies, and tax credits to the families that need to be insured. The government is part of the solution, not the solution.

Every other Western democracy in the world has a single payer system and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare and cover everyone. Why? Because there are inherent cost savings with a single payer system.

Do a little research....

I do believe you need to do the research. What country in the entire world has the best healthcare system?? Why do those other people come to the U.S. to seek out healthcare??? Why do we have more MRI machines than the rest of the world combined???

 

[DiveCon]

We already have universal healthcare, just a really, really bad version of it. Everyone can be treated in the emergency room. We don't let people bleed to death on the street here. Not yet, anyway. So the rich get great healthcare, and the poor get no healthcare until they are at death's door. Does that sound like a good way to run a society? No, it doesn't. The ironic thing is that every other Western democracy has a single payer system, and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare. Why? Because they don't have to pay liability lawyers, insurance companies, and Big Pharma. There are inherent cost savings with a single payer system. The Germans have had one since 1886!

With a single payer system you would still pick your doctor, and your doctor would still own his practice. There would just be one insurance company, and that would be the government.

There are solutuons that have been put on the table that would insure those who have not. Get this Chris, it's done in the private sector, at a cost far less than what your lawyer run universal healthcare system. With tax credits, for insurance companies, and tax credits to the families that need to be insured. The government is part of the solution, not the solution.

Every other Western democracy in the world has a single payer system and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare and cover everyone. Why? Because there are inherent cost savings with a single payer system.

Do a little research....

you are the one needing to do research
but your fault is that you limit your research to liar sites

 

[smb15]

There are solutuons that have been put on the table that would insure those who have not. Get this Chris, it's done in the private sector, at a cost far less than what your lawyer run universal healthcare system. With tax credits, for insurance companies, and tax credits to the families that need to be insured. The government is part of the solution, not the solution.

Every other Western democracy in the world has a single payer system and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare and cover everyone. Why? Because there are inherent cost savings with a single payer system.

Do a little research....

you are the one needing to do research
but your fault is that you limit your research to liar sites

Of course any site that doesn't report "facts" I don't agree with are all "liar" sites.

 

[DiamondDave]

I've no desire to take any benefits away from the military. You're reasons make no sense to me. All Americans by virtue of being Americans should have the same access to good health care. I looked around a bit and it seems military personnel get breaks on all kinds of insurance, life, health, car, homeowner...too funny. You know the REST of us pay for this, too, there's nothing in the constitution that elevates one group above the rest.

Nobody.. citizen of this country or any other is OWED a goddamn thing

You have the same access to even better health care coverage... open up your purse and fucking pay for it if you feel you want or need it

So you think the military shouldn't get it? How about retired military personnel?

Nice attempt at trying to twist what I said

Did I say the military does not deserve the employee contracted benefit they receive?

Nope

The military does pay for their benefit... thru their service

And the retired, just as other retired persons from other professions and companies, take advantage of the benefits they were offered as compensation by their employer... paid for by their service

You and other citizens are not owed this benefit afforded to those who earned that benefit, when you do nothing but exist as a citizen

As stated SO many times.. you want a benefit, pay for it.. choose an employer that provides that as compensation for service... if you don't have the skillset to obtain it now, obtain that skillset yourself to be able to demand that benefit compensation... but nobody and no government OWES that to you

 

[DiveCon]

Every other Western democracy in the world has a single payer system and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare and cover everyone. Why? Because there are inherent cost savings with a single payer system.

Do a little research....

you are the one needing to do research
but your fault is that you limit your research to liar sites

Of course any site that doesn't report "facts" I don't agree with are all "liar" sites.

have you ever looked at the BS sites the moron, chris, uses?

 

[DiamondDave]

Guess in your world.. you are owed something by the world or those around you

Taking care of your own responsibility, and advancing for the things you want or need does not lead to slavery... but nice attempt at a leap into the ridiculous

The only thing that is ridiculous is the notion that healthcare should be rationed by a persons ability to pay. Taking care of your own responsibility as you define it does lead to a slavery of sorts. This is called wage slavery. It has its own stifling effects on economic conditions and can and has led to civil strife. I do not believe I nor anyone else is "owed" anything. We have a society. A society by its very definition is a group of people banded together by common principles and purpose. Two of the things that keeps a society from disintigrating is growth and stability. Having the society take the responsibility for the health and welfare of its constituents is a natural course for a society to take in that it promotes both growth and stability. Therefore it is a natural progression of a society, if it wants to survive and/or thrive, for that society to provide for the health and welfare of its constituents. This leads to neither slavery nor true socialism and in fact helps prevent either situation from developing in a society.

Natural course? Are you fucking joking?

No.. this is not a goddamn hive mentality... but then again, a hive rids itself of the non-productive

It is a natural progression of society to have different members who do functions by choice or need... and that with those differing functions, services and goods are traded for each other in compensation... advanced care is one of those services...

But as in any system exchanging functions, services, efforts, those who do not provide do not get compensation for nothing... if you choose to do less, or do nothing, you indeed get less or nothing... and nobody exists to take the responsibility for your personal care or your personal well being FOR YOU

We will defend our free society as a whole... but in that defense we defend for the freedoms held within that society.. and within those freedoms are the rights to succeed AS WELL AS the right to fail... the right to earn or not to earn.... the right to have or not to have according to what you do and provide for yourself

I, nor any other citizen, nor the government is your fucking mommy to hand you an allowance for just being alive

 

[smb15]

you are the one needing to do research
but your fault is that you limit your research to liar sites

Of course any site that doesn't report "facts" I don't agree with are all "liar" sites.

have you ever looked at the BS sites the moron, chris, uses?

As far as I can see Chris has not offered any links to any sites on this thread, BS or not. I have only your biased opinion that whatever sites he uses for his research are "liar" sites. You further betray your bias by useless name calling. I don't know whether or not the sites Chris uses for research are valid or not because he has not linked to any. It has been my experience that many people pick and choose their "research" very carefully in order to prove their point. This is a natural course of debate, nobody wants to supply ammunition to those that espouse thier opposite point of veiw. It is however, a red flag warning when other people deride other poster's research as coming from "liar" sites, while simultaneously deriding the poster personally. At best this is bad form.

 

[Ravi]

Nobody.. citizen of this country or any other is OWED a goddamn thing

You have the same access to even better health care coverage... open up your purse and fucking pay for it if you feel you want or need it

So you think the military shouldn't get it? How about retired military personnel?

Nice attempt at trying to twist what I said

Did I say the military does not deserve the employee contracted benefit they receive?

Nope

The military does pay for their benefit... thru their service

And the retired, just as other retired persons from other professions and companies, take advantage of the benefits they were offered as compensation by their employer... paid for by their service

You and other citizens are not owed this benefit afforded to those who earned that benefit, when you do nothing but exist as a citizen

As stated SO many times.. you want a benefit, pay for it.. choose an employer that provides that as compensation for service... if you don't have the skillset to obtain it now, obtain that skillset yourself to be able to demand that benefit compensation... but nobody and no government OWES that to you

That's bullshit. Without me and millions of other private taxpayers, the military would have no benefits. It doesn't matter if they earned it or not, we as a society choose to give it to them. We could just as easily choose not to...so what you are doing is creating a class of people that are more priveleged than everyone else...and it's the military...how Stalinesque.

 

[DiveCon]

So you think the military shouldn't get it? How about retired military personnel?

Nice attempt at trying to twist what I said

Did I say the military does not deserve the employee contracted benefit they receive?

Nope

The military does pay for their benefit... thru their service

And the retired, just as other retired persons from other professions and companies, take advantage of the benefits they were offered as compensation by their employer... paid for by their service

You and other citizens are not owed this benefit afforded to those who earned that benefit, when you do nothing but exist as a citizen

As stated SO many times.. you want a benefit, pay for it.. choose an employer that provides that as compensation for service... if you don't have the skillset to obtain it now, obtain that skillset yourself to be able to demand that benefit compensation... but nobody and no government OWES that to you

That's bullshit. Without me and millions of other private taxpayers, the military would have no benefits. It doesn't matter if they earned it or not, we as a society choose to give it to them. We could just as easily choose not to...so what you are doing is creating a class of people that are more priveleged than everyone else...and it's the military...how Stalinesque.

then it wouldnt be a part of their pay package, would it?
as it is NOW, they EARN it

 

[smb15]

Guess in your world.. you are owed something by the world or those around you

Taking care of your own responsibility, and advancing for the things you want or need does not lead to slavery... but nice attempt at a leap into the ridiculous

The only thing that is ridiculous is the notion that healthcare should be rationed by a persons ability to pay. Taking care of your own responsibility as you define it does lead to a slavery of sorts. This is called wage slavery. It has its own stifling effects on economic conditions and can and has led to civil strife. I do not believe I nor anyone else is "owed" anything. We have a society. A society by its very definition is a group of people banded together by common principles and purpose. Two of the things that keeps a society from disintigrating is growth and stability. Having the society take the responsibility for the health and welfare of its constituents is a natural course for a society to take in that it promotes both growth and stability. Therefore it is a natural progression of a society, if it wants to survive and/or thrive, for that society to provide for the health and welfare of its constituents. This leads to neither slavery nor true socialism and in fact helps prevent either situation from developing in a society.

Natural course? Are you fucking joking?

No.. this is not a goddamn hive mentality... but then again, a hive rids itself of the non-productive

It is a natural progression of society to have different members who do functions by choice or need... and that with those differing functions, services and goods are traded for each other in compensation... advanced care is one of those services...

But as in any system exchanging functions, services, efforts, those who do not provide do not get compensation for nothing... if you choose to do less, or do nothing, you indeed get less or nothing... and nobody exists to take the responsibility for your personal care or your personal well being FOR YOU

We will defend our free society as a whole... but in that defense we defend for the freedoms held within that society.. and within those freedoms are the rights to succeed AS WELL AS the right to fail... the right to earn or not to earn.... the right to have or not to have according to what you do and provide for yourself

I, nor any other citizen, nor the government is your fucking mommy to hand you an allowance for just being alive

So based off your response I would have to ask you...

What was the name of the last road that you built?

What private security firm do you hire to ensure that your property doesn't get stolen?

What private air traffic controllers to you employ when need to fly across the country?

Bottom line is as a society we COLLECTIVELY provide for many things that make our lives much more manageable because by and large it is easier on us, cheaper for us and aids in the stability and growth of the society. I propose that some form of universal healthcare is a natural outgrowth of any society simply because it makes logical sense. It can be instituted in such a way as it provides both stability in society and promotes general happiness without infringing on basic civil liberties. It also promotes our capital markets. You can pine about rugged individualism all you want but if you want a strong, stable society going into the future, universal healthcare is a no-brainer.

 

[toomuchtime_]

And what is the decisive factor on what kind of insurence coverage you've contracted for...dollars, i.e. care rationed by ability to pay.

Just as insurance companies limit services to control costs, if you have national health insurance or even an national health service, as the UK does, the government will try to control costs in part by limiting covered services, and those who can afford to pay for those services on their own will get them and those who can't afford to pay, won't get them.

Good point, Toomuch. One thing I have been reading about is how people in socialized healthcare that have the $$$$, come over here for our healthcare. If socialized healthcare is better than ours, this wouldn't be happening. I have always said that if I have a cold or a broken leg, socialized healthcare would be just fine, but if I need a transplant, or have cancer....I want the free market healthcare, because I'm going to die without it.

Imo, the quality and availability of healthcare will depend more on the cultural values of the nation than on whether a private insurance company or a government agency is making the decisions. I just haven't seen any statistics to support the idea that the quality or availability of healthcare will suffer if we go to a single payer or multi payer national health insurance system, such as Canada has, or a multi payer system such as Japan or Germany or Switzerland has. While it appears to be true, that some Canadians who can afford it come to the US for some medical services, it is also true that they have a life expectancy of about 2.5 years longer than ours while paying about 48% less per capita than we do. The Japanese pay even less and live even longer, and Japan has more private hospitals than we do and more mri's and ct scanners per unit population than we do.

I'm always nervous about anything politicians design, but since it's clear that we are incrementally extending health insurance to more an more people anyway, I would like to see a long and thorough national debate during which we could objectively compare the pros and cons of the various systems, but I doubt the political climate will allow anything so reasonable.

In the meantime, I'm inclined to think the kind of system Japan, Germany, Switzerland, etc., have of government regulated, privately owned, non profit insurance companies which must insure everyone would suit us best. People who already have health insurance would not notice any difference in the quality or availability of healthcare, but they would see a drop in premiums, and people who don't have insurance would get it. When you balance the higher taxes you would probably have to pay against the lower premiums you would pay, it's probably a wash or better.

 

[toomuchtime_]

And what is the decisive factor on what kind of insurence coverage you've contracted for...dollars, i.e. care rationed by ability to pay.

Just as insurance companies limit services to control costs, if you have national health insurance or even an national health service, as the UK does, the government will try to control costs in part by limiting covered services, and those who can afford to pay for those services on their own will get them and those who can't afford to pay, won't get them.

Of course they will ration care. I have never stated otherwise. Healthcare has to be rationed. What is of importance is how that rationing takes place. Is it means tested rationing, bureaucratic rationing, insurance company rationing or medical need rationing. Under the current "system" that exists we have both means rationing and insurance company rationing. I would ask what difference does it make whether or not a government official or an insurance company official denies your care? Under a properly erected system of single payer, non-means tested universal healthcare, policies can be made that use medical needs to ration care rather than economic means.

You're really confusing two issues here, the ability to obtain health insurance and availability of medical services once you have it. Certainly, for people who don't have insurance some sort of government program that gave them insurance would increase the availability of services, but for people who already have insurance, there is no reason to believe the government would be any more generous in covering services than private insurers are. When costs go up, the government will eventually have to choose between raising taxes or cutting services and to the extent they can get away with it, they will try to cut services first.

 

[toomuchtime_]

We already have universal healthcare, just a really, really bad version of it. Everyone can be treated in the emergency room. We don't let people bleed to death on the street here. Not yet, anyway. So the rich get great healthcare, and the poor get no healthcare until they are at death's door. Does that sound like a good way to run a society? No, it doesn't. The ironic thing is that every other Western democracy has a single payer system, and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare. Why? Because they don't have to pay liability lawyers, insurance companies, and Big Pharma. There are inherent cost savings with a single payer system. The Germans have had one since 1886!

With a single payer system you would still pick your doctor, and your doctor would still own his practice. There would just be one insurance company, and that would be the government.

There are solutuons that have been put on the table that would insure those who have not. Get this Chris, it's done in the private sector, at a cost far less than what your lawyer run universal healthcare system. With tax credits, for insurance companies, and tax credits to the families that need to be insured. The government is part of the solution, not the solution.

Every other Western democracy in the world has a single payer system and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare and cover everyone. Why? Because there are inherent cost savings with a single payer system.

Do a little research....

That's not true. Japan, Germany, Switzerland, France, Belgium, the Netherlands and others have government regulated multi payer systems in which non profit privately owned insurance companies provide health insurance.

 

[smb15]

Just as insurance companies limit services to control costs, if you have national health insurance or even an national health service, as the UK does, the government will try to control costs in part by limiting covered services, and those who can afford to pay for those services on their own will get them and those who can't afford to pay, won't get them.

Of course they will ration care. I have never stated otherwise. Healthcare has to be rationed. What is of importance is how that rationing takes place. Is it means tested rationing, bureaucratic rationing, insurance company rationing or medical need rationing. Under the current "system" that exists we have both means rationing and insurance company rationing. I would ask what difference does it make whether or not a government official or an insurance company official denies your care? Under a properly erected system of single payer, non-means tested universal healthcare, policies can be made that use medical needs to ration care rather than economic means.

You're really confusing two issues here, the ability to obtain health insurance and availability of medical services once you have it. Certainly, for people who don't have insurance some sort of government program that gave them insurance would increase the availability of services, but for people who already have insurance, there is no reason to believe the government would be any more generous in covering services than private insurers are. When costs go up, the government will eventually have to choose between raising taxes or cutting services and to the extent they can get away with it, they will try to cut services first.

I wasn't confusing the issue just replying to someone quoting the tired line of having some government bureaucrat or agency determine health resources. Your assumption is that a universal healthcare system would allow for private insurance. I am saying that a properly designed universal healthcare system can dispense with the unecessary cost of multiple for-profit private insurers in place on one single payer insurance either government run or public trust non-profit NGO. The system can be designed with enough checks to ensure that care is rationed based on medical need. The point is care will have to be rationed, how it is rationed is of importance. How this system is designed is of equal importance. Therefore we must pay particular attention to our elected officials to ensure that the debate on this is as open, honest and free from undue influences as possible.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Of course they will ration care. I have never stated otherwise. Healthcare has to be rationed. What is of importance is how that rationing takes place. Is it means tested rationing, bureaucratic rationing, insurance company rationing or medical need rationing. Under the current "system" that exists we have both means rationing and insurance company rationing. I would ask what difference does it make whether or not a government official or an insurance company official denies your care? Under a properly erected system of single payer, non-means tested universal healthcare, policies can be made that use medical needs to ration care rather than economic means.

You're really confusing two issues here, the ability to obtain health insurance and availability of medical services once you have it. Certainly, for people who don't have insurance some sort of government program that gave them insurance would increase the availability of services, but for people who already have insurance, there is no reason to believe the government would be any more generous in covering services than private insurers are. When costs go up, the government will eventually have to choose between raising taxes or cutting services and to the extent they can get away with it, they will try to cut services first.

I wasn't confusing the issue just replying to someone quoting the tired line of having some government bureaucrat or agency determine health resources. Your assumption is that a universal healthcare system would allow for private insurance. I am saying that a properly designed universal healthcare system can dispense with the unecessary cost of multiple for-profit private insurers in place on one single payer insurance either government run or public trust non-profit NGO. The system can be designed with enough checks to ensure that care is rationed based on medical need. The point is care will have to be rationed, how it is rationed is of importance. How this system is designed is of equal importance. Therefore we must pay particular attention to our elected officials to ensure that the debate on this is as open, honest and free from undue influences as possible.

Again, a government bureaucrat will limit services to control costs just the same as an insurance company employee does.

I don't see why you insist on a single payer system. Most European countries have multi payer systems that use government regulated privately owned non profit insurance companies to provide health insurance. Their costs appear to be the same or lower than Canada's single payer system, and in some cases the competition appears to provide more more MRI's and CT scanners and so forth than Canada is able to provide.

As for Congress giving us an open, honest debate that is free from political influence, that's not going to happen. Even here on this board you can see how very partisan almost everyone is on this issue. What changes we get will be the ones most easily passed, not the ones that will be best for us.

 

[smb15]

You're really confusing two issues here, the ability to obtain health insurance and availability of medical services once you have it. Certainly, for people who don't have insurance some sort of government program that gave them insurance would increase the availability of services, but for people who already have insurance, there is no reason to believe the government would be any more generous in covering services than private insurers are. When costs go up, the government will eventually have to choose between raising taxes or cutting services and to the extent they can get away with it, they will try to cut services first.

I wasn't confusing the issue just replying to someone quoting the tired line of having some government bureaucrat or agency determine health resources. Your assumption is that a universal healthcare system would allow for private insurance. I am saying that a properly designed universal healthcare system can dispense with the unecessary cost of multiple for-profit private insurers in place on one single payer insurance either government run or public trust non-profit NGO. The system can be designed with enough checks to ensure that care is rationed based on medical need. The point is care will have to be rationed, how it is rationed is of importance. How this system is designed is of equal importance. Therefore we must pay particular attention to our elected officials to ensure that the debate on this is as open, honest and free from undue influences as possible.

Again, a government bureaucrat will limit services to control costs just the same as an insurance company employee does.

I don't see why you insist on a single payer system. Most European countries have multi payer systems that use government regulated privately owned non profit insurance companies to provide health insurance. Their costs appear to be the same or lower than Canada's single payer system, and in some cases the competition appears to provide more more MRI's and CT scanners and so forth than Canada is able to provide.

As for Congress giving us an open, honest debate that is free from political influence, that's not going to happen. Even here on this board you can see how very partisan almost everyone is on this issue. What changes we get will be the ones most easily passed, not the ones that will be best for us.

If you read all of my posts this is exactly the argument I was making. It makes no difference whether it is a civil servant or insurance bean counter that makes the decisions in rationing care. I insist on a single payer system because it is the easiest to manage. I can live with a multi-payer system as long as the insurers are non-profit but I believe the single payer is the easiest for oversight and management. As far as the debate being open and honest, we get what we are willing to put up with. If we, as a society, do not allow the elected politicians to make sausage out of a universal healthcare system then they won't.

 

[Chris]

Ensuring the health of all citizens benefits a nation economically.[80]
About 60% of the U.S. health care system is already publicly financed with federal and state taxes, property taxes, and tax subsidies - a universal health care system would merely replace private/employer spending with taxes. Total spending would go down for individuals and employers.[81]
A single payer system could save $286 billion a year in overhead and paperwork.[82] Administrative costs in the U.S. health care system are substantially higher than those in other countries and than in the public sector in the US: one estimate put the total administrative costs at 24 percent of U.S. health care spending.[83]
Several studies have shown a majority of taxpayers and citizens across the political divide would prefer a universal health care system over the current U.S. system[84][85][86]
Universal health care would provide for uninsured adults who may forgo treatment needed for chronic health conditions.[87]
Wastefulness and inefficiency in the delivery of health care would be reduced.[88]
America spends a far higher percentage of GDP on health care than any other country but has worse ratings on such criteria as quality of care, efficiency of care, access to care, safe care, equity, and wait times, according to the Commonwealth Fund.[89]
A universal system would align incentives for investment in long term health-care productivity, preventive care, and better management of chronic conditions.[90]
Universal health care could act as a subsidy to business, at no cost thereto. (Indeed, the Big Three of U.S. car manufacturers cite health-care provision as a reason for their ongoing financial travails. The cost of health insurance to U.S. car manufacturers adds between USD 900 and USD 1,400 to each car made in the U.S.A.)[91]
The profit motive adversely affects the cost and quality of health care. If managed care programs and their concomitant provider networks are abolished, then doctors would no longer be guaranteed patients solely on the basis of their membership in a provider group and regardless of the quality of care they provide. Theoretically, quality of care would increase as true competition for patients is restored.[92]
A 2008 opinion poll of 2,000 US doctors found support for a universal health care plan at 59%-32%, which is up from the 49%-40% opinion of physicians in 2002. These numbers include 83% of psychiatrists, 69% of emergency medicine specialists, 65% of pediatricians, 64% of internists, 60% of family physicians and 55% of general surgeons. The reasons given are an inability of doctors to decide patient care and patients who are unable to afford care.[93]
According to an estimate by Dr. Marcia Angell roughly 50% of health care dollars are spent on health care, the rest go to various middlepersons and intermediaries. A streamlined, non-profit, universal system would increase the efficiency with which money is spent on health care.[94]
In countries in Western Europe with public universal health care, private health care is also available, and one may choose to use it if desired. Most of the advantages of private health care continue to be present, see also two-tier health care.[95]
Universal health care and public doctors would protect the right to privacy between insurance companies and patients.[96]
Public health care system can be used as independent third party in disputes between employer and employee.[97]
Libertarians and conservatives can favor universal health care, because in countries with universal health care, the government spends less tax money per person on health care than the U.S. For example, in France, the government spends $569 less per person on health care than in the United States. This would allow the U.S. to adopt universal health care, while simultaneously cutting government spending and cutting taxes.[98]

Universal health care - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[DiamondDave]

The only thing that is ridiculous is the notion that healthcare should be rationed by a persons ability to pay. Taking care of your own responsibility as you define it does lead to a slavery of sorts. This is called wage slavery. It has its own stifling effects on economic conditions and can and has led to civil strife. I do not believe I nor anyone else is "owed" anything. We have a society. A society by its very definition is a group of people banded together by common principles and purpose. Two of the things that keeps a society from disintigrating is growth and stability. Having the society take the responsibility for the health and welfare of its constituents is a natural course for a society to take in that it promotes both growth and stability. Therefore it is a natural progression of a society, if it wants to survive and/or thrive, for that society to provide for the health and welfare of its constituents. This leads to neither slavery nor true socialism and in fact helps prevent either situation from developing in a society.

Natural course? Are you fucking joking?

No.. this is not a goddamn hive mentality... but then again, a hive rids itself of the non-productive

It is a natural progression of society to have different members who do functions by choice or need... and that with those differing functions, services and goods are traded for each other in compensation... advanced care is one of those services...

But as in any system exchanging functions, services, efforts, those who do not provide do not get compensation for nothing... if you choose to do less, or do nothing, you indeed get less or nothing... and nobody exists to take the responsibility for your personal care or your personal well being FOR YOU

We will defend our free society as a whole... but in that defense we defend for the freedoms held within that society.. and within those freedoms are the rights to succeed AS WELL AS the right to fail... the right to earn or not to earn.... the right to have or not to have according to what you do and provide for yourself

I, nor any other citizen, nor the government is your fucking mommy to hand you an allowance for just being alive

So based off your response I would have to ask you...

What was the name of the last road that you built?

What private security firm do you hire to ensure that your property doesn't get stolen?

What private air traffic controllers to you employ when need to fly across the country?

Bottom line is as a society we COLLECTIVELY provide for many things that make our lives much more manageable because by and large it is easier on us, cheaper for us and aids in the stability and growth of the society. I propose that some form of universal healthcare is a natural outgrowth of any society simply because it makes logical sense. It can be instituted in such a way as it provides both stability in society and promotes general happiness without infringing on basic civil liberties. It also promotes our capital markets. You can pine about rugged individualism all you want but if you want a strong, stable society going into the future, universal healthcare is a no-brainer.

A road is not your PERSONAL responsibility... Neither is the guiding of an airliner thru airspace.... Those are parts of INFRASTRUCTURE and done not just for the collective benefit of society, but to expand the power of the country

Whether you go get a colonoscopy, or a VD test, is on YOUR personal responsibility... it is YOUR body, not society's body... it is YOUR health, not society's health

Nobody is refused access to a public road or sidewalk or other things on PUBLIC land.. your BODY and your PERSONAL status is NOT FUCKING PUBLIC DOMAIN....

Again... you want specific care and coverage FOR YOUR SELF... YOU FUCKING PAY FOR It

Ignorant socialist ignorance

 

[DiamondDave]

So you think the military shouldn't get it? How about retired military personnel?

Nice attempt at trying to twist what I said

Did I say the military does not deserve the employee contracted benefit they receive?

Nope

The military does pay for their benefit... thru their service

And the retired, just as other retired persons from other professions and companies, take advantage of the benefits they were offered as compensation by their employer... paid for by their service

You and other citizens are not owed this benefit afforded to those who earned that benefit, when you do nothing but exist as a citizen

As stated SO many times.. you want a benefit, pay for it.. choose an employer that provides that as compensation for service... if you don't have the skillset to obtain it now, obtain that skillset yourself to be able to demand that benefit compensation... but nobody and no government OWES that to you

That's bullshit. Without me and millions of other private taxpayers, the military would have no benefits. It doesn't matter if they earned it or not, we as a society choose to give it to them. We could just as easily choose not to...so what you are doing is creating a class of people that are more priveleged than everyone else...and it's the military...how Stalinesque.

Then VOTE for people who wish to eliminate military health benefits and a separate military health system.. be my guest..

But none of that takes away from the fact that they FUCKING EARN THEIR BENEFITS... not having it given to them simply for existing and at the expense of others

You in some way pay for EVERY EMPLOYEE's benefits of any business you contribute to... and you could complain to every one of those businesses about elitism or not giving people who do nothing for that company health benefits or whatever.. they'll laugh at you as we do